Secondary service connection
Foot impairment secondary to a back condition: BVA grant rates and what wins
From 2018 to 2026, the Board of Veterans' Appeals decided foot impairment claimed as secondary to a back condition in 355 decisions. It granted the issue in 6.2% of them, below the 11.1% grant rate for all foot impairment issues, denied it in 18.6%, and remanded it in 74.9%. Counting only decisions on the merits, 25.0% were granted.
Decisions
355
2018–2026
Granted
6.2%
All foot impairment: 11.1%
Granted on the merits
25.0%
Granted ÷ (granted + denied)
Remanded
74.9%
Denied: 18.6%
See all foot impairment decisions, direct and secondary.
Foot impairment secondary to a back condition: outcomes by year
| Year | Decisions | Granted | Denied | Remanded |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 | 29 | 6.9% | 20.7% | 65.5% |
| 2019 | 41 | 7.3% | 26.8% | 65.9% |
| 2020 | 47 | 4.3% | 27.7% | 68.1% |
| 2021 | 48 | 4.2% | 20.8% | 75.0% |
| 2022 | 48 | 2.1% | 10.4% | 87.5% |
| 2023 | 45 | 4.4% | 8.9% | 86.7% |
| 2024 | 55 | 5.5% | 14.5% | 81.8% |
| 2025 | 28 | 17.9% | 17.9% | 64.3% |
Evidence in granted and denied foot impairment decisions
For each kind of supporting evidence: how often the Board granted the foot impairment issue on the merits when the decision mentioned it, compared with decisions that did not. These are associations, not causes, and evidence is recorded per decision, not per issue.
| In the record | Decisions | Granted when present | When absent | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive nexus opinion | 47 | 60.9% | 12.3% | +48.6 pts |
| Private medical opinion | 84 | 42.3% | 17.7% | +24.6 pts |
| Lay statement | 299 | 22.8% | 44.4% | −21.7 pts |
- The Board applied the benefit-of-the-doubt rule (38 CFR 3.102) in 68.2% of the decisions that granted foot impairment.
- The Board found the veteran's statements credible in 27.3% of grants and 4.5% of denials.
Negative evidence in the record
An unfavorable exam or a negative nexus opinion often sits in the same record as favorable evidence, and the Board weighs them against each other. So these rows show how often foot impairment was still granted when the record contained the negative item, not that the item helped.
| In the record | Decisions | Granted when present | When absent | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfavorable VA exam | 286 | 25.0% | 25.0% | +0.0 pts |
| Negative nexus opinion | 234 | 21.2% | 36.4% | −15.2 pts |
Why the Board granted or denied foot impairment
Most common reasons in grants
- Caused by the service-connected disability7
- Current diagnosis established2
- Service connection established2
Most common reasons in denials
- No in-service complaints, treatment or diagnosis9
- Service records negative or silent8
- Preponderance of the evidence against the claim7
- VA examiner: less likely than not related to service6
- Aggravated by the service-connected disability5
- No current diagnosis5
- Lumbar spine disorder not service-connected2
- Not otherwise related to in-service injury or disease2
Numbers are decisions that gave the reason. Reasons are short phrases extracted by AI from each decision; common wordings of the same reason are grouped. Benefit of the doubt is reported above.
Recent foot impairment decisions
Granted
Prognosis favors service connection; Secondary to service-connected lumbosacral strain; More probative evidence from private/VA treatment records; Pain with functional loss constitutes a disability
Private chiropractor opined condition is more likely than not secondary to lumbar spine disorder.; Chiropractor cited antalgic gait and weight-shifting due to lumbar spine disorder.; Private opinion given great weight due to reliance on medical history and clear conclusions.
Aggravated by service-connected lumbar spine and left ankle disabilities; Private medical opinion found at least as likely as not aggravated; Benefit of the doubt applied
Denied
No current foot disability established.; No nexus to service-connected lumbar spine disability shown.
No in-service injury documented for right foot; Negative nexus opinions from VA examiners (Aug 2024, Mar 2025); No evidence of aggravation by service-connected lumbar spine condition
No evidence of in-service manifestation or relation to in-service injury; Lay statements lacked probative value due to inconsistencies; No specific treatment for foot issues during service; Failure to attend VA examinations
Rules that apply to secondary foot impairment claims
- 38 CFR 3.310
Secondary service connection and aggravation
Read it in VA Law Explorer - M21-1 V.ii.2.D
Secondary service connection and aggravation of non-service-connected disabilities
Read it in VA Law Explorer - 38 CFR 3.102
Reasonable doubt (benefit of the doubt)
Read it in VA Law Explorer
Research your foot impairment case
Narrow by year, judge, evidence or secondary condition, read the decisions, and export a research memo.
How these numbers are calculated
- Counts decisions in which the Board decided a foot impairment issue claimed as secondary to a back condition, by the outcome of that issue.
- The primary disability is read from the decision text ("secondary to …") and grouped by name, so spellings such as "PTSD" and "posttraumatic stress disorder" count together.
- Secondary claims also include aggravation of a non-service-connected condition by a service-connected one (38 CFR 3.310(b)).
- The data comes from CaseScribe's AI extraction of public BVA decisions (2018–2026) and can contain errors. It is updated automatically as new decisions are added.